Looks like the U.S has finally begun to realise that like the Soviets, British and others before them, they are swimming in quicksand. So they're going to accept to make peace with the most "evil diabolical group on the face of the earth", who ban people from flying kites.

---

US commander signals peace talks with Taliban

The top US commander in Afghanistan has said a negotiated peace with the Taliban is the way forward.

Gen Stanley McChrystal told the UK's Financial Times that there had been "enough fighting" and he wanted a political solution to the conflict.

President Obama's deployment of 30,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan would weaken the Taliban enough to force it to agree a peace deal, he said.

He added that the Taliban could help run the country in future.

His comments come ahead of an international conference on Afghanistan due to be held in London later this week.

"I'd like everybody to walk out of London with a renewed commitment, and that commitment is to the right outcome for the Afghan people," Gen McChrystal said.

Recently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the BBC that he planned to introduce a scheme to attract Taliban fighters back to normal life by offering money and jobs.

He said he would offer to pay and resettle Taliban fighters to come over to his side.

Mr Karzai said he hoped to win backing for his plan from the US and UK at the London conference.

'Right outcome'

"As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there's been enough fighting," Gen McChrystal told the Financial Times.

"I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it's the right outcome," he said.

Gen McChrystal said the arrival of the extra 30,000 US troops pledged by President Obama and the additional 7,000 troops promised by other Nato countries should deliver "very demonstrably positive" progress.

"It's not my job to extend olive branches, but it is my job to help set conditions where people in the right positions can have options on the way forward," he said.

Gen McChrystal also said that the Taliban could have a role in a future Afghan government.

"I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past," he said.

Source: BBC

If they do succeed in bringing democracy and civilisation to that corner of the world, it can hardly be called a defeat.

What would you call a victory Abu? Slaughtering every single Taliban supporter?

Since it is a war on Islam, then victory obviously means removing Islam (and anyone who clings to it) from power and replacing them with puppets who serve the White house, instead of God.

On this front, they definitely seem to be losing.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:48am:

Since it is a war on Islam, then victory obviously means removing Islam (and anyone who clings to it) from power and replacing them with puppets who serve the White house, instead of God. On this front, they definitely seem to be losing.

Oh! The taliban are serving god?! I thought they wanted to dictate to the rest of the country to live according to their own interpretation of what god wants  and to make the place  safe haven for fighting infidels everywhere. Not surprisingly, god told them he wants them to dictate to the rest of the country and wage jihad. Not unlike Mohammed. How's that for coincidence!!

If they simply wanted to keep the place in abject poverty like a lot of other Mulims ountries, that would be fine. But they want to wage jihad. For that, they will be punished. If the US pulls out and the bearded opinheads continue to crry on in their usual insane ways, they will be bombed from far away. Easy.

Quote:

Since it is a war on Islam

I see. You basically redefine the war to fit with your global anti-Islam conspiracy so that you can claim victory from defeat and defeat from victory.

If it is a war on Islam, why are so many self identified Muslims on our side?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:48am:

Since it is a war on Islam, then victory obviously means removing Islam (and anyone who clings to it) from power and replacing them with puppets who serve the White house, instead of God.

This idea of serving god before the state is a big problem. I remember on the CH9 Today Show years ago, after some religio-racial conflict had flared up in Sydney, they made the mistake of bringing in a young Muslim man to discuss how he can be a good Muslim and a good Australian... Only he didn't see it his duty to swear any allegiance to the state and promptly told them so... That his only allegiance was to Allah, everything else being secondary and remotely so... The interview didn't go well and as I remember was mercifully cut short. The religious arrogance and belligerence of the man served only to confirm what his detractors were saying about Islam and Muslims all along.... But, then again, at least he was honest... Now we have Waleed Ali who can take his teeth out for the media and talk of passive Islam (as distinct from moderate).

Quote:

If it is a war on Islam, why are so many self identified Muslims on our side

The fact it's a war on Islam doesn't preclude the possibility of there being traitors, sell outs, or just plain naive people.

Likewise during the Crusades, some Muslims helped the Crusaders. Likewise in Palestine some Palestinians help the Israelis and some Israelis help the Palestinians. The fact you didn't automatically know this tends to indicate your thought processes are not very advanced fd.

Ah yes, the wet dream of jihadists and wannabes - a religious war...

Abu it's pretty rare to get a war where the majority of 'one side' is supporting the other side.

Fd - at least that'ld make it a pretty quick war.

I can see why thinking "muslims" would help infidels to escape from islam

Quote:

Abu it's pretty rare to get a war where the majority of 'one side' is supporting the other side.

The majority are not supporting it though.

I don't know where on earth you got this hair brained idea from.

Do you think because most Muslim rulers (ie. the West's little lapdogs) support it, therefore their respective populaces, by implication, support it? You gotta be kidding.

It's called elections Abu. That's how you tell what people want. It is you who judges popular support from a few anecdotes of people who think it is a great idea when the Taliban beat up their neighbours for them - and credit the absence of anecdotes of dissent with the absence of dissent, rather than the obvious reason that dissenters are beaten up. Or killed.

Anyway, back to the point. The world is not your little conspiracy delusion. It is not a war on Islam. Bringing about a peaceful end is not a loss, it is a victory. It seems that only Muslims believe the only victory is the mass slaughter of your enemy and all their supporters.

Ok, let's leave the mass slaughter as a victory outcome on the side.

Did they achieve their goals? What were their goals again? To put down al-Qaedah and make them unable to carry out revenge attacks against the West... did it work? do you honestly believe all the nonsense that "al-Qaedah" today is worse off than in 2001?? The facts tend to suggest the diametric opposite.

In fact if I didn't know better, I'd think OBL actually plotted for the U.S to invade, in order to boost the popularity of his movement a million fold. His son said something along those lines in a recent interview.

Quote:

Ok, let's leave the mass slaughter as a victory outcome on the side.

Sounds like a good idea. I hope you weren't serious when you said that was the only way we could claim victory.


Quote:

Did they achieve their goals? What were their goals again? To put down al-Qaedah and make them unable to carry out revenge attacks against the West... did it work?

Yet to be seen. They have brought democracy, which has a good chance of surviving, which really will be an awesome change for that corner of the world. Furthermore, instead of being 'loosely allied' the terrorists, the national government is fighting against them. This is a big improvement on the terrorists being able to strike on the other side of the world.


Quote:

do you honestly believe all the nonsense that "al-Qaedah" today is worse off than in 2001?? The facts tend to suggest the diametric opposite.

I think the situation is far better than if we had left them to keep plotting from Afghanistan. That would have been diabolical. That is the real choice. Not between now and the past, but between different versions of the present. We can't wind back the clock. We didn't have a choice between nothing changing for 10 years and doing something. We had a choice between doing something or letting AQ keep the initiative.

Quote:

I hope you weren't serious when you said that was the only way we could claim victory.

Since I don't remember saying that, I'll leave that on the side also.  :-?


Quote:

Yet to be seen.

If it's yet to be seen, why are they calling for peace with the Talibaan? I also heard today the U.N is taking some of the top Talibaan leaders off their list of individuals personally under sanctions, and lifting travel restrictions on them (under the condition they don't bring box cutters on board flights with them  ;D)


Quote:

They have brought democracy, which has a good chance of surviving

Come on you're not still living under this delusion of yours are you?? The Karzai puppet government controls no more than a tiny little province around Kabul, and even there they are under serious attack. If they had any chance of surviving it is long gone now. You could've optimistically said this about 2-3 years ago, but not today. Karzai and his band of warlord criminals and drug smugglers are on their last [U.S supplied] legs. He and his opium-king brother will soon be applying for U.S citizenship and immigrating.


Quote:

Furthermore, instead of being 'loosely allied' the terrorists, the national government is fighting against them.

I really don't understand the meaning of this sentence at all. Care to elaborate?? Who was "loosely allied" to the terrorists??


Quote:

This is a big improvement on the terrorists being able to strike on the other side of the world.

Come on, they've been carrying out worldwide attacks with even more frequency since 2001, not less.

If anything, all the U.S has done is just helped to spawn a plethora of movements all around the world, who all are getting their inspiration from what the U.S hoped to crush. Gotta be the stupidest invasion in modern history, alongside Hitler's winter invasion of Russia  ;D

The U.S has effectively brought into existence what they falsely claimed existed in 2001. A worldwide movement of angry Muslim resistance groups, wanting revenge for all of their brutal and unwarranted intrusions into Muslim lands.

We're almost there... just another 15 years  ;D

Anyone who believes the U.S had any form of victory whatsoever in Afghanistan would have to be living in a fantasy land. The U.S and their lapdog Karzai will soon be openly begging the Talibaan, before they finally plop their tails between their legs and scamper back to whence they came. The Talibaan were prepared to risk losing power for one single man... I doubt they're going to just roll over and compromise now. Either there's gonna be another 15 years of worsening conditions for the U.S, or they'll realise the benefits of cutting their losses and bolting now.

---

Hamid Karzai: Afghan forces 'could need 15 years' help'

Afghanistan could need foreign support for its security forces for up to 15 years, President Hamid Karzai has told the BBC, as key talks open in London.

Mr Karzai is in Britain for a one-day summit on the future of Afghanistan, where a possible offer of talks with moderate Taliban is high on the agenda.

He is also set to unveil detailed plans on tackling corruption in the country.

Foreign ministers from 70 nations are expected to give renewed momentum to nation-building in Afghanistan.

Opening the conference, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it was a "decisive time" for the future of Afghanistan.

"By the middle of next year, we have to turn the tide in the fight against the insurgency," Mr Brown said.

'Financially able'

The talks are being hosted by the UK, UN and the Afghan government.

Speaking to the BBC before the talks got under way, Mr Karzai said: "With regard to training and equipping the Afghan security forces, five to 10 years will be enough," Mr Karzai said.

"With regard to sustaining them until Afghanistan is financially able to provide for our forces, the time may be extended to 10 to 15 years."

Donor countries are expected to set up a fund to help lure Taliban members back into Afghan society.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47197000/jpg/_47197037_008631276-1.jpg      
An Afghan man (The face-palm says it all  ;D)

What will happen at the conference?

But Mr Brown told the BBC any effort to reintegrate insurgents could work only if Afghanistan's own army and police were strong enough to take charge of security from international forces

"The first thing is to strengthen the Afghan forces, and then to weaken the Taliban by dividing them," he said.

"You cannot have a situation where you are making advances to those people who are prepared to renounce violence and join the democratic process and say they will have nothing more to do with the activities they have been involved with in the past unless you have a strong Afghan army and police."

Mr Karzai has won general support for his plan to reintegrate, but Western nations are expected to ask for more details on the strategy at the summit.

The proposed fund would help reintegrate defecting foot soldiers with the promises of jobs, cash and protection.

The Taliban responded to news of the conference with a statement saying that no talks would be possible until foreign forces had left Afghanistan.

Anti-corruption drive

The BBC has also learned that President Karzai is going to produce detailed proposals on how to tackle corruption in Afghanistan.

A recent UN survey found that corruption is seen by ordinary Afghans as the biggest problem in the country. It has also been a long-standing concern with Afghanistan's Western backers.

The BBC's Martha Kearney, in Kabul, says there has been scepticism about the president's political will to tackle corruption.

One of the most significant proposals is the creation of an external watchdog composed of anti-corruption experts from around the world.

Hard fighting ahead

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the timing of the London conference is critical.

According to most military analysts the Taliban is riding high, but the US surge in forces is under way and weeks and months of hard fighting lie ahead, our correspondent says.

More work will be done on bolstering Afghanistan's own security forces, as well as setting goals on development and governance and a renewed emphasis on setting Afghanistan's problems in a wider regional framework.

A follow-up conference will be held in Kabul in a few months.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has named a long-serving UN diplomat, Staffan de Mistura, as his new representative in Afghanistan.

Mr De Mistura, who holds Swedish and Italian nationalities, will replace the outgoing head of the UN mission in Kabul, Kai Eide, when he steps down in March.

Mr Eide was accused by a colleague of being too close to President Karzai and his government, and of downplaying fraud during presidential elections last year. Mr Eide always denied the allegations.

Source: BBC

abu_rashit, nice to know you support militant terrorist murderers who oppress women. Now be a good muzzie and go spank a pig.

Quote:

you support militant terrorist murderers who oppress women

No actually that would be you.

I vehemently oppose militant terrorist murderers like Bush, his successors and accomplices.

Quote:

If it's yet to be seen, why are they calling for peace with the Talibaan?

Abu, all wars end in some kind of peace. This is not a war against islam and the US does not want to kill them all. It would be a great shame if that was necessary.

There is more to this than simply 'US versus Taliban'. Nobody cares whether Afghanistan has a nice government or a nasty one as long as they are minding their own business within their borders.

But being militant islamist nutters, they are dreaming of the Ummah and of exporting their ideology and influence. That is what will not be allowed. That is why they will be subject to bombardment and financial an economic blockade, a la Iraq in the 1990s, should the Taliban 'convince' the US to pull out without they themselves cutting out the jihadist ummah-mongering.

If Iran gets involved, it will be wacked as a matter of principle and long-overdue payback for 1979. Iran is careful because it is now surrounded by US hardware. Any show of acctive belligerence would also satisfy Israel's need for a concrete excue to wack Iran and its puppets, Hezb'Allah and Hamas.

If the Pakis are also drawn into the conflict, India will be there too. And then Uncle Sam will truly be able to go home and let them wage war, supporting India while it is useful. If China gets drawn in, then we'll be living in interesting times because any tentative expansion by China ill be watched by Russia with its finger on the trigger.

America's vital intrest is not to have a formidable geopolitical rival. An Asian conflagration will weaken only America's rivals.

The taliban and the Afghans generally are only the pawns in this game. It matters not whether there is an Afghanistan. What matters to the US is that if Afghanistan is to be devasted, it be devastetd at a time and in the manner of the US's chosing, not anyone else's. There are more important things at stake here than the taliban.

Quote:

Abu, all wars end in some kind of peace.

Good to see you've learnt something from history.

Too bad you missed this part "All wars in Afghanistan end in some kind of peace, on the terms of the Afghan people". This has always been the case with Afghanistan.

And don't further delude yourself with the propagandous tripe about America's puppets being the Afghan people. They are not.


Quote:

This is not a war against islam

Of course you'd like to believe that, but the reality is that it is a war against Islam and Muslims. It is a war to maintain the goals accomplished in WWI (ie. the abolition of the Caliphate), it is a war to ensure the bulk of the Muslim lands remain squarely under the dominion of the Western powers, to ensure they do not rule by Islam.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

Of course you'd like to believe that, but the reality is that it is a war against Islam and Muslims. It is a war to maintain the goals accomplished in WWI (ie. the abolition of the Caliphate), it is a war to ensure the bulk of the Muslim lands remain squarely under the dominion of the Western powers, to ensure they do not rule by Islam.

Religion is ineradicable and the West has no more an interest in eradicating Islam than in wiping out Astrology.

Islam, however, is being used as a device to rally Muslims to Middle Eastern causes that owe their existence rather to a perceived sense of historical injustice and disenfranchisement than religion.

Quote:

Religion is ineradicable

If that were true, then there'd still be pre-Christian religions extant in Europe. There is not, because it is not true. Religions can be eradicated.


Quote:

and the West has no more an interest in eradicating Islam

Well I think we have different ideas of what is meant by a war on Islam. I don't know that they want to eradicate every single trace of it (although that may well be on the cards somewhere down the line), but they certainly wish to cripple it severely by secularising it and turning it into a toothless tiger like Christianity has become.

They want to eradicate it from having any meaning in people's lives beyond ritualism. They seek to eradicate its educational, governmental, military etc. aspects, and to turn it into another personal spiritual experience like they've done to Christianity. Unlike Christians though, Muslims will never accept this.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 12:24pm:

Quote: Religion is ineradicable If that were true, then there'd still be pre-Christian religions extant in Europe. There is not, because it is not true. Religions can be eradicated.

Instances of religion have been superseded by others  or morphed into other instances of religion...

Instances of religion are also ineradicable unless their respective adherents abandon their belief system for another... But I must qualify... An instance is eradicable where all its adherents are killed.


abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 12:24pm:

Quote: and the West has no more an interest in eradicating Islam Well I think we have different ideas of what is meant by a war on Islam. I don't know that they want to eradicate every single trace of it (although that may well be on the cards somewhere down the line), but they certainly wish to cripple it severely by secularising it and turning it into a toothless tiger like Christianity has become. They want to eradicate it from having any meaning in people's lives beyond ritualism. They seek to eradicate its educational, governmental, military etc. aspects, and to turn it into another personal spiritual experience like they've done to Christianity. Unlike Christians though, Muslims will never accept this.

It's certainly true that secularist states encourage separation of religion and state. I've heard that (ironically) Shi'ism historically separated itself from state affairs. Is this true?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 12:24pm:

They want to eradicate it from having any meaning in people's lives beyond ritualism. They seek to eradicate its educational, governmental, military etc. aspects, and to turn it into another personal spiritual experience like they've done to Christianity. Unlike Christians though, Muslims will never accept this.

They seek to eradicate YOUR interpretation of religion having any influence on MY life. And I couldn't applaud them more for it.
And if you are agitating for YOUR interpretation of religion to have any say over MY life, then you are my enemy and whoever is trying to stop you has my support. You are trying to cross a line that will only get your nose bloody.



.

Quote:

Too bad you missed this part "All wars in Afghanistan end in some kind of peace, on the terms of the Afghan people". This has always been the case with Afghanistan.

The same will happen this time. Except it won't be on the terms of a minority of extremist people, but on the terms of the majority of the people.


Quote:

And don't further delude yourself with the propagandous tripe about America's puppets being the Afghan people. They are not.

Isn't that your tripe? Every time the Afghan people choose something good for themselves, you say it is mere'y US puppets imposing the will of the US on them.


Quote:

Of course you'd like to believe that, but the reality is that it is a war against Islam and Muslims.

The majority of the people on both sides are Muslims. You simply don't make sense Abu.


Quote:

It is a war to maintain the goals accomplished in WWI (ie. the abolition of the Caliphate),

That doesn't make sense Abu. Our allies are turning Afghanistan from a bunch of warring tribes that no-one in Afghanistan could bring together in anything mmore than a loose coalition, into a unified, functioning state, where the majority of the people will get to choose their own destiny. Neither resembles the Caliphate, but a unified functioning state is closer.


Quote:

it is a war to ensure the bulk of the Muslim lands remain squarely under the dominion of the Western powers, to ensure they do not rule by Islam.

We are giving power to the Afghan people for the first time. That they choose something different to you seems to trouble you, as you can only blame it on some giant conspiracy, rather than the will of the people. You go to great lengths to put together any kind of argument that a small minoirty seeking a return to the violent and brutal ways of the Taliban is in fact the majority expressing itself, when it clearly is not.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

It is a war to maintain the goals accomplished in WWI (ie. the abolition of the Caliphate), it is a war to ensure the bulk of the Muslim lands remain squarely under the dominion of the Western powers, to ensure they do not rule by Islam.

If you could keep it in your trousers to the 'muslim lands' you could have your Ummah - except your idea of 'muslim lands' is, eventually, everywhere.

So if it is a question of Islamics ruling us or us ruling Islamics, the ansewr is easy -keep the Caliphate abolished. You want it to spead, we want it out of our faces. There's the dilemma for the age.

Not just us. It seems most self declared muslims want it abolished. The claim that we have been able to prevent, for a few centuries, what muslims in the middle east want with some targetted interference is nothing short of absurd. That we would hand them deocracy on a platter as a way of preventing them from getting what they want is even more absurd. It rteally makes the mind boggle - the sort of mental gymanstics people will go through to maintain their world view.

helian,


Quote:

I've heard that (ironically) Shi'ism historically separated itself from state affairs. Is this true?

Not true at all. In fact the very reason for the schism in the first place was that they wanted the leadership of the Caliphate to goto specific people. Their entire belief is based around controlling state affairs.

Perhaps this might've been suggested because of the fact that Shi'a states didn't always exist, whilst a mainstream Islamic Caliphate existed from year 0 Hijri right up until 1343 (ie. 1924).

fd,


Quote:

Every time the Afghan people choose something good for themselves, you say it is mere'y US puppets imposing the will of the US on them.

Come on, even the West themselves have given up the charade and openly admit the elections were all rigged. I can't believe you're still peddling this one... really, wake up.


Quote:

The majority of the people on both sides are Muslims.

On what side??


Quote:

The claim that we have been able to prevent, for a few centuries, what muslims in the middle east

Few centuries?? The Caliphate hasn't even been abolished for a complete century. Please do yourself a favour, read some history. I thought you learnt long ago that you really don't have the background to comment on Islamic history, since you don't even have the basic timeline in perspective, let alone any of the specific details.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 12:20am:

helian, Quote: I've heard that (ironically) Shi'ism historically separated itself from state affairs. Is this true? Not true at all. In fact the very reason for the schism in the first place was that they wanted the leadership of the Caliphate to goto specific people. Their entire belief is based around controlling state affairs. Perhaps this might've been suggested because of the fact that Shi'a states didn't always exist, whilst a mainstream Islamic Caliphate existed from year 0 Hijri right up until 1343 (ie. 1924).

I can't find the site that described the historical secular tendencies within Shi'ism but it seems there is currently a strong preference by Shi'ites for separation of religion and state...


Quote:

Although most Iraqis strongly agreed that "religious" candidates should become Iraq's future political leaders, Shias want (by 66 to 27 percent) a separation between religious and state authority. "It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question" (Zinsmeister 2003).

Interesting that this taste for separation of religion and state is popular among Shi'ites if there is no historical tradition... Unless Shi'ites have only recently been turned away from theocracy by the excesses of the Islamic Republic.

Quote:

Come on, even the West themselves have given up the charade and openly admit the elections were all rigged. I can't believe you're still peddling this one... really, wake up.

We gave them democracy Abu, not just a single election. Unless the Muslim extremists get their way, it will be very hard to prevent the people from getting what they want.

It is a good thing to co-op the enemy over to your side of the conflict. The USA did this with the Sunnis in Iraq.

In Afganistan, the Taliban offers the highest paid jobs available to many local men.   If the USA and Afganistan can rebuild the country and the economy, many of the local men would rather work at normal jobs.

Co-opting the enemy is a good strategy. It beats fighting them to the death, like the USA had to do with Japan in World War II.  Then we had to drop 2 atomic bombs to get them to surrender. That way, the USA save millions of Japanese lives from fighting to the death.

But, cCo-opting the enemy is also dangerous, if you are just appeasing the enemy until they stab you in the back.